This article seems to read somewhat like an advertisement, but it is well written. I fixed some basic formatting stuff, but someone else may want to make it into a more encyclopedic article.--Mars2035 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't adequately distinguish between Medical Home and other conceptualizations of primary care. When I read the article, it seems to be describing a well-organized primary care practice with some payment reform and other incentives thrown in. Agree that it sounds like an advertisement for medical home.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by N201LJ (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a major expansion to this article yesterday. I agree with N201LJ that what's needed is more context (i.e., what other positive options exist?) and better explanation of what a medical home is instead of more advertising for the concept and/or people involved in promoting it.

The major problem with the article in general and the recent additions in specific is that the tone sounded promotional, due to phrases like "Building Evidence and Momentum". It read like a marketing brochure instead of an encyclopedia article. At Wikipedia, we don't really care about any given organization or the names of the people that are running them. We don't care about the brochures that this organization has produced. We only want dispassionate, objective, independent information about the general idea. Wikipedia is not a promotional opportunity.

We don't want external links to their website in the middle of our articles. We don't want half a dozen links to the same website, even if they're to different pages at the same website. We especially don't want the same link added two or three times to the same article. External links (in that section, as opposed to being used as a reliable source in the references) are supposed to provide significant, detailed information about the topic of the article. I'm not sure that the PCPCC website (which communicates this information: "Look, an organization exists!") or a "Purchaser's Guide" really meet our guidelines. We're here to inform, not to provide advertising opportunities for organizations or practical advice to patients.

There were also some minor grammar and style errors. For example, "patient centered" should be hyphenated when it's used as an adjective: "a patient-centered medical home". We don't need to repeat your organizations' key phrase ("patient centered") in most paragraphs, especially since it's difficult to imagine a medical home that isn't patient-centered (medical homes are defined around the patient). One superfluous addition of the phrase "patient centered" essentially defined a patient-centered medical home as being patient-centered, which is poor writing (and thinking) style. We don't use ALL CAPS in articles.

Finally, parts of what you pasted into our article represented serious copyright violations. I see that some of it came from this report, for example. Wikipedia simply cannot accept information that is cut-and-pasted from someone else's publications.

I hope that this helps; this page is on my watchlist, and I'd be happy to help answer any further questions about these issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay...Well I am just confused because you did not delete the whole thing, which is written in the same style as the section I added was.

Also, we do not hyphenate patient centered. It is a non-profit website, so I don't see how it was "promotional" or "advertising". I see external links in a lot of articles on Wikipedia, by the way. And it is not a copywright because we work for PCPCC so it is our publication I copied and pasted from. And most medical homes are not patient centered, there is a big difference and that is why we wanted to put information on here so people would know about it. I believe that all the information I added was informative, that was the sole purpose. However, I will attempt to edit it based on your suggestions. TaraLouise (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, promoting or advertising a non-profit's website is considered just as bad as promoting or advertising any other website. There are certainly many external links; what you shouldn't find is multiple links to the same website in a single article. The complete rules are here.

Copyright issues

There's a statement on the editing page that says, "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." This is a really important decision, because it essentially un-does your organization's copyrights in certain respects. You (and certainly your supervisor, and probably your organization's lawyers) should read the GFDL and probably also this page to see whether you really, really want to do that. If you do, then there's a system for telling Wikipedia that you want to do that. (However, just because your organization makes that choice does not obligate Wikipedia to accept or use the material.)

Content

This article is about Medical homes as a general concept. If you think that most medical homes are not patient-centered, then you might try writing a section on the concrete, specific, practical differences between a patient-centered medical home and non-patient-centered medical homes.

As for hyphenation: Your organization appears to have chosen a grammatically incorrect name (Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative). The organization's name is a proper noun and should be reported exactly as the organization chose to have it, complete with the error. However, in all other instances, a "patient-centered <something>" should be hyphenated because it's the correct grammar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative is a coalition of major employers, consumer groups, patient quality organizations, health plans, labor unions, hospitals, physicians and many others who have joined together to develop and advance the patient-centered medical home. The Collaborative has more than 300 members. The Collaborative believes that, if implemented, the patient-centered medical home will improve the health of patients and the viability of the health care delivery system. In order to accomplish this goal, employers, consumers, patients, physicians and payers have agreed that it is essential to support a better model of compensating physicians The following Statements of Support articulate how the patient- centered medical home is assuming a pivotal role in helping reform the U.S. health care system.

Patient and consumer groups

“It is such a relief for parents and families to have a medical home that works for them and their children. Having to navigate the medical system for prevention purposes is hard enough. It becomes even more dizzying when your child is sick. In the end, medical care providers who partner with families make their work more efficient and effective. Families know best.” Sophie Arao-Nguyen, Ph.D., Executive Director, Family Voices Inc.

Quality organizations

“A medical home can reduce or even eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in access and quality for insured persons,” a report from the Commonwealth Fund released in June 2007 finds. “When adults have a medical home, their access to needed care, receipt of routine preventive screenings, and management of chronic conditions improve substantially.” The Commonwealth Fund 2006 Health Care Quality Survey.

Patient Centered Medical Home

A compilation of PCMH pilot and demonstration projects

This informative report, produced as a resource document by the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative's Center for Multi-Stakeholder Demonstrations, shares lessons learned and best practices from 23 existing patient centered medical home demonstration programs taking place across the country. It features a listing of the current pilot projects --in various stages of development --and highlights specific project attributes such as demographics, payment models and project evaluation in an organized, consolidated fashion. By highlighting these ongoing efforts, the PCPCC continues to build a strong evidence base demonstrating that the patient centered medical home and the systems proposed in the PCPCC's Joint Principles lead to increased cost savings and patient satisfaction. The result of a collaborative effort involving all health care stakeholders, this report serves as an informational resource, as well as a call-to-action, to those interested in using the model and proving its value.

By the way, is there any way I make "Patient-Centered Medical Home", a new search instead of adding information under the current "Medical Home" page? TaraLouise (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the "headlines" would be kept, and all of the text has problems:

Again, I don't think that Wikipedia cares about the Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative. It's just (yet another) organization. Why should this particular organization get a lot of attention in this article (or any), when none of the (many) others in the world do? The reader's take-home message is "Some organization is promoting medical homes." Do you think that this communicates any actual information about medical homes as a concept? I don't.

The quote under "Patient and consumer groups" is a lovely soundbite, but it's not encyclopedic in nature. It's an effort to persuade the reader to agree, by appealing to the pathos of a sick child and desperate parents. This bit of excellent marketing material is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Under "Quality organizations", the direct quotation from the Commonwealth report would normally not be a quotation. The information from the report might be acceptable, but it should be re-written to present the information in a formal, detached, dispassionate style without copying directly from the report.

The "informative report" is unimportant. Why in the world would a reader care about the existence of this report? "Hey, we published something on this subject!" provides no direct information about the subject itself. Imagine a similar situation: a student goes to the article on George Washington, and instead of finding actual information about the first President of the United States (under the current constitution), he (or she) reads, "A lot of books have been published about George Washington." Does that seem to you like it would tell the student anything at all about George Washington? Why would we want to do something very similar in this article?